Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it has been my intent to offer today an amendment to this bill that would have been a straight limitation on the Federal Communications Commission prohibiting the Commission from implementing any change in the current rules related to media cross-ownership and concentration of media ownership issues. I am concerned with the current level of concentration in media markets. I think there are too few media outlets in many markets across the country. A concentration of media power into the hands of a few media companies is an issue I think every one of us in this body ought to be concerned about, and I think we need to take a closer look at this issue. That was the purpose of my amendment. I am concerned that the current group of commissioners on the FCC, particularly the chairman, does not share this concern and may even be laying the groundwork for relaxing or even eliminating some of the media ownership limitations on the books at the FCC. My amendment would not have tied the agency's hands in considering proposed changes. I just wanted to make sure that the Congress had an opportunity to review the proposals in the appropriate forum before the FCC could implement any changes to those rules. My amendment, therefore, would have delayed until the end of the year the implementation of any proposed changes to the rules addressed in media cross-ownership and concentration. I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, shares many of my concerns; and I know he also had concerns about the amendment I was considering because he feared it would tie the hands of the Commission to respond to any court order challenging the current rules, if there is such a court order, during the fiscal year. So I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman. Knowing of the gentleman's concerns regarding the issue of diversity in the media and maintaining the voice of local broadcasting, I would urge him to keep this issue at the front of the debate on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I would ask the gentleman one question: Can he tell us if the authorizing committee intends to hold hearings on the issue of media ownership?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to emphasize two things: as the gentleman from Florida indicated, if Members want to have their amendments considered, those amendments need to be filed tonight. If Members have already submitted those amendments to the Clerk, then the Clerk will see to it that they are printed. But Members need to know that if they want consideration of amendments, they need to be filed tonight. I would also ask another favor of Members. We, on several occasions now, have had the bill read past the point where Members were eligible to offer their amendments. If Members have amendments that they intend to have offered, they need to be on the floor when we reach that point in the bill for consideration of their amendments, because there is no intention on either side of the aisle to go back into the bill to make an opportunity for amendments to be offered if Members have not been here at the proper time to offer their amendments. We will, as the gentleman indicates, try to take all the amendments that we know of and put them in reasonable order with a reasonable time limit. We need the cooperation of every Member to do that.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so only to emphasize my total agreement with the comment of the gentleman from Florida. We will in this instance agree to go back because there is one Member from each party who would otherwise not be able to offer their amendments. But I think Members need to understand it is hard enough for the committee to manage a bill. We try our level best to accommodate Members. And we try to help them shape their amendments if they need help, but Members need to be here when those amendments come up in the regular bill. If they are not here, the committee cannot be expected to jump through hoops in the future. So I think Members need to understand from here on out on this bill, if you want to offer an amendment, you have to be here at that point in the bill when the amendment is eligible; or else they will not be eligible for offering. We are trying to help Members get out at a reasonable time tonight and make certain that Members' amendments are going to be dealt with tomorrow, but we need the cooperation of Members. So, again, I want to repeat what was said earlier. I also would urge any Member who is talking about filing an amendment to get that amendment filed in the Record tonight so that we know what universe of amendments we are going to be dealing with tomorrow, because the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) are going to have a lot of things to do tomorrow, and they will have an opportunity to put together some kind of an agreement in the morning. But we need to know which amendments Members are going to offer. So if they are going to offer amendments, they need to get them filed in the Record tonight to facilitate the committee business. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to do two things: first of all, congratulate the gentleman for the bill he has brought to us. I obviously do not agree with all of it, but I certainly intend to support it unless some surprises occur on the House floor. I think he has done a good job. Having said that, I would like to try to determine whether or not we can reach a reasonable understanding about what our plans are for this evening. The problem we face is that at this point we have some 31 amendments filed, we have other amendments that are being faxed to the leadership on both sides of the aisle, and the longer that this process goes on, the more amendments we are going to have to deal with for the remainder of consideration of this bill. I would simply rise at this point to say that I would like to see us reach an agreement under which we could ask all Members to have their amendments in tonight so that we would be able tomorrow to try to work out time agreements on all these subsequent amendments. And if we can do that, we can have some chance of finishing the bill either tomorrow or early the next day. The problem we face, as I understand it, is that this committee is not going to be allowed back on the floor tomorrow morning. We are going to be superceded by another bill, and I am told by majority staff that that means we are not likely to get to the floor until 2:30 or 3 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. If that is the case, and if we have 60 amendments pending, there is no way on God's green earth we will even finish this bill tomorrow. So it seems to me if we want to accelerate our opportunity to finish this bill, we would first of all try to get an agreement that Members, if they want amendments considered, would have to get them in tonight; and then we can try tomorrow, while the other bill is being worked on, the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from New York can try to work out a time agreement on whatever amendments we have remaining. I just want the House to understand that I am perfectly willing to try to work out these arrangements, but we have been in committee since 10 a.m. this morning. We did not start this bill until 7 p.m. That was not our call; it was the majority that did the scheduling, and it seems to me that we ought to know that we will get out of here at a reasonable time tonight. I do not enjoy the prospect of having amendments being debated here and Members coming in in the middle of the night having no idea what we have been debating and voting on the fly. I do not think that serves the interest of this institution. So I want to notice the House that if we cannot get an agreement on a reasonable time to get out of here tonight, I will begin a series of motions; and we are not going to get very far on this bill. With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do so to engage in a friendly filibuster on behalf of the House, because what we are trying to do is to bring to the House floor a unanimous consent agreement so that Members will understand what the intention is in terms of proceeding for the rest of the evening. The staff is in the process of writing the changes to that agreement right now, so to prevent this from getting into another protracted debate on another amendment this evening, I am simply taking this time in the hopes that by the time I sit down, we will have the required paperwork so the Committee can proceed. I am looking around with great expectation, hoping that the staff in fact has the paperwork ready, but I think they have all fled to the cloakrooms.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy we do not have to ask the Sergeant to bring in the absent staff. If the gentleman is ready to proceed, I am happy to yield back my time so that he can propound the unanimous consent request.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman intend to use any more of his time? I only have, I believe, two speakers.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman. The last time we were in this situation the gentleman did not use a lot of his time and at the end took about a 10-minute block with several speakers. Is the gentleman indicating that he has no additional speakers except himself?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think more than a few Members of this House and a lot of people outside of this institution have been pleasantly surprised at the relative unity this House has had on a bipartisan basis on appropriation bills this year. Last night we passed the agriculture appropriations bill with 95 percent support in this House. We had similar majorities which supported the transportation bill, the energy and water bill, the interior bill. And it seems to me that that kind of consensus we have been able to develop on each of those bills has been good for both parties, it has been good for the House, it has been good for the country. It helps us to get our work done, and it helps us to build a foundation for cooperation on other items. I think it has been a very positive thing and something we have not seen enough of in this House in recent years. However, the legislation which the majority is asking us to pass today in this bill does not represent that type of consensus. It is not bipartisan legislation. It has been handed down from on high. I think it is severely constrained by a narrow, partisan, ideological judgment about how we spend our money and how we meet the country's needs, and I think the current situation illustrates clearly how misguided that judgment is. There are a few people on the other side of the aisle and people in the White House who have taken the position that once Congress has passed a budget plan, we have to put together our bills through the year, and that we cannot address any other needs beyond those anticipated in the original plan. It does not matter how much circumstances change; it apparently does not matter what the magnitude of natural disasters are that strike; it does not matter, I suppose, if we decide to go to war. If we have only a few months left in the fiscal year and a hurricane strikes, we can wait until October 1 to provide assistance, or we can fire IRS agents or close down some other badly needed program in order to find the money to pay for that disaster assistance. That, in essence, is the point of view that is controlling the consideration of this bill. Now, some people are having difficulty understanding the term ``faith-based initiative.'' I think an example might be our disaster assistance program. We are praying that we do not have any more storms. We are trying to preclude acts of God from getting in the way of our budget process. I think that is an arrogant way for human beings to go about legislating, but so be it; that apparently is the mindset around here. Mr. Speaker, I would point out, and this chart demonstrates one example, which shows what happened to one highway in Houston after the reign of terror in June of 2001. Currently, we are trying to cope with that huge gulf storm. Damage in a single county in Texas was estimated to be $4.8 billion. The director of FEMA called me and told me that he thought that it could be possible that they would need significant additional money above the amount already appropriated by this Congress, and when contacted by the Houston Chronicle, OMB director Daniels stated, and I quote, that ``It is highly likely'' that FEMA's budget will need another boost this year. What is going to happen with this bill? OMB told my office last night they are not planning to make a request. They are hoping to slide by on existing funds. If everything goes right and if God decides that the weather is not going to operate the way it normally does, we may just make it through. But if we have a normal year and we have a couple of hurricanes after we leave here in August, what then? We are not going to have the money to respond to those disasters. What are we going to do then? Are we going to go down to Texas and deobligate money that we have initially provided? I would hope not. But whatever happens, without additional funding, we will not be providing normalcy to people who are affected by those storms. Why is that? The reason is that all of the needs facing the Federal Government apparently must be met within a $6.5 billion package. Why is that? That is because that number was picked out by Congress last December when we were trying to get out of here in time for Christmas. Does that number have any relationship to the current projected surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare? No, it does not. Did we know at the time how much rising fuel costs would affect steaming costs for the Navy or training exercises in the Air Force? No, we did not. Did we know how much those costs would deplete spare parts inventories for aircraft, tank, and ships? No, we did not. Did we know we were going to face major electricity blackouts in most of the western United States? No, we did not. Did we know we were going to have a severe storm hit the gulf coast in the month of June? No, we did not. I did not know that a tornado with 250 mile-an-hour winds was going to hit a town in my own congressional district. We did not know any of those things. Yet, we are being told that we have to stick within that magic number because that is what the number was defined as last summer. That is a ridiculous way to legislate. When this conference report comes back, it will be the last train through the station for the year. If Mitch Daniels or others at the White House think there is a high probability or even a significant probability that additional FEMA funds will be needed, and evidently they do, then they ought to ask for them, rather than to pretend that this problem does not exist. In my view, we are playing a stupid numbers game with the lives of people who have already gone through a great deal just to insist that the numbers concocted in the middle of the night 8 months ago are the right numbers. So consequently, I will be asking the House in this motion to do three things. First, I ask that we accept the Senate judgment and eliminate the action of the House in rescinding previously-approved money for FEMA. Everybody in this House knows that we are going to need that money. Let us fess up. Secondly, I am going to ask that we instruct the conferees to recede to the Senate and accept the funds which the administration requested but the House deleted to deal with foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease. Thirdly, I will ask the House to instruct conferees to recede to the Senate and accept the money needed to process the checks that are owed to victims of radiation exposure. Some of those people are extremely ill. Some have already died. These are people who were exposed, in many instances unknowingly, to radiation as a result of the development, testing, and transportation of radioactive material by the Federal Government. In other words, those people were fried by their own government. It seems to me that a government that can spend $30 million on a political mailing to tell people that they are going to get a tax cut is a government that should not be simultaneously denying already- earned benefits to people who are dying and need that money now, not after they are in the grave. I would also point out that the administration itself sent a letter commending the Senate ``for not including the provision in the House- passed version of the bill that would have rescinded $389 million in disaster relief funding for FEMA.'' I would urge Members to listen to the administration on this item, and listen to us on the other two items, do what we know we are going to have to do, and instruct the conferees to accept these three items. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, when the vote comes, I will join my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ask the people to vote yes on the motion. I will also ask them to vote yes on a later motion that we will make to add three items to this proposition. We will simply be asking the House to approve three Senate actions that would eliminate the rescission for FEMA, that would fund the administration request for mad cow disease and for hoof and mouth disease, and to fund the claims for radiation victims, many of whom are sick or dying and some of whom have already died. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I do want to tie the hands of the conferees on these three items, because I think there is absolutely no reason for us to use these items as leverage. I think the people who are eligible for these funds and need these funds need to know that they are going to get them, and the sooner we do that, the better off everybody is going to be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would like me to respond, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, let me simply say I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I think that demonstrates that even he understands that we need to reject what the House originally did with respect to FEMA. But I would say that I cannot accept the gentleman's offer because I think there is no rational reason whatsoever for the House not to do what the Senate has already done and to provide the money that we badly need in the agricultural area, and to provide the money that we know we have a moral obligation to provide to the victims of radiation poisoning. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.